Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

jrepin writes "Global Chokepoints is an online resource created to document and monitor global proposals to turn Internet intermediaries into copyright police. These proposals harm Internet users' rights of privacy, due process and freedom of expression, and endanger the future of the free and open Internet. Our goal is to provide accurate empirical information to digital activists and policy makers, and help coordinate international opposition to attempts to cut off free expression through misguided copyright laws, policies, agreements and court cases. Scroll down to see a list of countries currently featured for threatening free expression through copyright censorship."

I'm not sure what Digital Music Copyright Act is under United States of America [globalchokepoints.org] country section, but I've heard of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If they can't even get that part right then why should I bother with the website at all?

As soon as you plug into the internet you should have very little expectation of privacy. All your files are now available to a hack, your browsing habits are available to the OS and there for to logging and your banking information is now available to anyone sniffing. When the internet because common place privacy became obsolete. If you were concerned with your privacy then you wouldn't go on-line.

The site has pretty much nothing to do with privacy, regardless of what the quick abstract says. Its more about censorship and how much governmental control there is over the Internet infrastructure in that country.

When you come out with a product that will GUARANTEE everyone's safety on the net then you can talk. I'm not willing to write something to accomplish this so I'm not going to run my mouth about how it should exist. It doesn't and that is the truth.

Internet privacy isn't exactly dead, but it's very close to it. Privacy, to a degree, is available for those who do a bit of work to preserve their privacy. Of course, some people think I'm crazy for going to the effort.

This would be some website with no apparent traffic nor any viable revenue model...interesting.I wonder who's footing the bills for the operating costs? hmmm...?But obviously some benefactor with some kind of agenda...interesting...

Yes. But that means that another entity is between them and the public. And there already were demands for social networks to censor user generated content even from the "free" world.
Any third party that might tamper with your content -and collect your subscribers' data- should be avoided.

After complaints of sloppy inaccuracy over the DMCA meaning, I took a look at NZ. The writers seem to have it backwards about the "notice fee". As I remember the arguments at the time the law was passed, the rightsholders are charged BY the ISP a fee to help compensate for their work in determining the offender and the delivery of the notice. The text on the website says the rightsholders charge the ISP, which makes no sense at all.

I was quite perturbed when the act was passed "under urgency", which means debate and committee consideration of the bill are curtailed somewhat. There was really no "urgency" for the matter that I could detect.

I really think we need a lot of political reform to keep this stuff from happening.

Firstly, we'd need to make sure legislators aren't too far away from the office (so to speak). If you had a job where you had to show up in person every day, would they hire you if you lived several hundred miles away? Therefore legislators should live within a reasonable distance of wherever it is that they have to meet during their term.

Secondly, we need to slow things down. I know Congress can often be cumbersome, but more

At the core of "censorship" efforts like PROTECT-IP and the like is a world-view that considers the internet to be a content distribution means.

Thinking in those terms they're trying to solve content distribution problems without even considering side-effects. Sometimes I wonder if they even realize that content distribution is only a tiny portion of what the internet is capable of, or how much their ham-fisted efforts are causing trouble for those other uses.

How in hell do you equate real, physical, real world goods with bits and bytes? I can author a story, or anything else on my computer, and it sits there forever. When someone "steals" it from my computer, I've really lost nothing, except maybe a little privacy. Now, if they steal my computer, that is a real world asset, which can only be replace by purchasing another computer.